Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

already grifting on this indictment:

 

[FullMonte]

Not fairytales.
Not.
Throw out emojis or cliches or whatever.
The truth will eventually come out.

Ok…it’s not fairytales.

What evidence exists, specifically, that Joe Biden (and Joe Biden specifically) laundered money?

A few facts for you to remember:
—Comer, at his press conference, was asked what evidence he had that Joe Biden did anything illegal, and his response was “we are at the early stages of our investigation.” (Which is a long way of saying “we don’t have any evidence.”
—Another GOP lawmaker at that press conference said, in reference to the statements about members of Bidens family receiving money from foreign individuals, “If any of these allegations can be proven true, we are talking about serious legal implications.”
—Chuck Grassley said, about the FBI form they are so anxious to get, “we are not interested in whether or not it’s true. We want to release it as soon as we get it.”

So, if the people who are shouting the loudest about the allegations against Biden admit they don’t have evidence against him, admit that their evidence may not be true, and admit they don’t care if it’s true or not…what evidence do YOU have thst Joe Biden committed crimes?

 

[FullMonte]

She lost a presidential election due to an investigation that was reopened and announced 10 days before the election by a Republican FBI director whose investigation ended with his team determining that there was nothing that rose to the level of being prosecuted. There were multiple republican investigations that turned up nothing.

Let’s not forget that when that Republican FBI director made thst announcement, he had also been overseeing an investigation into Donald Trump that he was keeping VERY quiet about.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Ok…it’s not fairytales.

What evidence exists, specifically, that Joe Biden (and Joe Biden specifically) laundered money?

A few facts for you to remember:
—Comer, at his press conference, was asked what evidence he had that Joe Biden did anything illegal, and his response was “we are at the early stages of our investigation.” (Which is a long way of saying “we don’t have any evidence.”
—Another GOP lawmaker at that press conference said, in reference to the statements about members of Bidens family receiving money from foreign individuals, “If any of these allegations can be proven true, we are talking about serious legal implications.”
—Chuck Grassley said, about the FBI form they are so anxious to get, “we are not interested in whether or not it’s true. We want to release it as soon as we get it.”

So, if the people who are shouting the loudest about the allegations against Biden admit they don’t have evidence against him, admit that their evidence may not be true, and admit they don’t care if it’s true or not…what evidence do YOU have thst Joe Biden committed crimes?

It’s in the same file cabinet with all the proof and evidence the my pillow guy has that Trump absolutely won 2020

 

[Optimus Prime]

From the moment Donald Trump left office under the cloud of an insurrection he inspired, two questions troubled the American conscience:


The first, asked urgently by Trump’s opponents, was rooted in the imperative of equal justice:

Shouldn’t a former president be held accountable for breaking the law, as any other citizen would be?

The second, popular among Trump’s supporters but also resonant with some of his historically minded critics:

How could the Justice Department of a new administration move to indict President Biden’s 2020 opponent — and potential future challenger — without damaging democratic norms?

Down the path of resisting charges against presidential criminality lay lawlessness, the death of accountability and a culture of impunity for the powerful.

But, asked the doubters, should we not worry that bringing a political opponent to justice might encourage a cycle of recrimination, an ongoing tit-for-tat use of prosecutorial power against political adversaries?

On Thursday, accountability overcame fear. In bringing the first federal charges ever against a former president, the Justice Department made the less political decision.

Special counsel Jack Smith focused solely on the facts of the documents case, on the law and on what Trump allegedly did.

“We have one set of laws in this country,” Smith said at a brief Friday news conference, “and they apply to everyone.”


In a devastating 49-page indictment, Smith detailed Trump’s deceptions, carelessness and willingness to save his hide by destroying or hiding documents — even from his attorneys — in, among other places, a shower in a bathroom.

It was the correct, sober and courageous call, but Trump’s apologists immediately cried foul. Never mind that many who denounced the Justice Department had reveled in cries of “lock her up” when Hillary Clinton was Trump’s 2016 opponent.

Never mind that Trump himself had argued that Clinton’s mishandling of government documents “disqualifies her from the presidency” and pledged “to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information.”


In an outrageous but unsurprising declaration, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy declared it “unconscionable for a president to indict the leading candidate opposing him.”……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/09/indictment-trump-documents-tragic-necessary/

 

[Incumbent]

UTJ: I would say he had the idea of monetizing it. We are talking about Trump after all. He said that people gave Nixon 18M for his documents in an interview or in a post, I forget. But it has occurred to him that these documents have value.

I read that it seems that he didn’t just grab documents randomly, but that he took those he thought had extra value and/or would be particularly embarrassing to the government if they leaked. We shall see, but my bet is that he planned to monetize them somehow.

Came across the quote:

The other part of this is we just don’t know what has already gone on with those documents and we might never. Trump has people in and out of Mar-a-lago. Documents could have been read or copied. Legally it will only matter what can be proven but it shouldn’t be downplayed how serious all of this is.

This was speculation from when Trump was in office. Now imagine a bitter former president Trump under the same circumstances and with documents that shouldn’t have been in his possession.

None of that dealing may have gone on at Mar-a-Lago, or maybe a lot of it did.

The point is we don’t know how many Saudi princes and American businessmen with stakes in the deal met with Trump at at Mar-a-Lago to push for a nuclear sale.

That’s because Mar-a-Lago is literally a black box where foreign government functionaries, businessmen and others can come and go unknown to hold private meetings with the president.

Cerabino: It’s not the intruders at Mar-a-Lago that we need to worry about

Frank Cerabino on the conviction of the Mar-a-Lago trespasser and the visitors who are the real threats to national security

www.palmbeachpost.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

…….Simply put, Trump’s indictment describes some of the most egregious conduct we have seen in cases involving the alleged mishandling of classified information by politicians.

Trump’s defenders will claim a double standard, but the comparisons they will raise don’t hold water.

Other prominent cases that were not pursued (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence) do not involve willful retention of documents, refusal to return them when requested, lying to authorities or other obstructive conduct.

They do not involve manufacturing a false rationale (e.g., magical declassification) to excuse deception and defiance of the law. And they don’t involve a willful game of hide-and-seek with authorities.

Expect MAGA world to continue to denounce the indictment as a witch hunt in the coming days. But to date, Trump has still not articulated a cogent criminal defense.

He has attacked prosecutors, wrongly asserted that President Biden stashed boxes of documents in D.C.’s Chinatown, insisted he declassified documents (despite saying he did not in the taped Bedminster conversation) and falsely declared the documents were his.


None of these constitute a viable (or even coherent) defense. At best, these arguments are fodder for the right-wing media outrage machine……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/09/trump-indictment-garland-smith-justice/

 

[Echo]

If found guilty I hope Trump receives the appropriate punishment.

 

[FullMonte]

I heard that the FBI was less than forthcoming in providing the documents that were requested by the congressional committee relating to President Biden.
I'll be watching with interest to see IF there is any wrong doing re. that (NOT the classified documents thingee found in Delaware)....the alleged bribes thing...the Hunter Biden thing....that thing....I'll be watching to see how THAT unfolds.

Is that ALL you heard? Well here is some more you can hear about it.

--The document in question is potentially part of an ongoing investigation.
--The document in question could potentially identify a source of information or some type of method used to obtain that information.
--The document in question is simply a form that an FBI agent uses to document an interaction.
--The document apparently was provided by Rudy Giuliani to Bill Barr's DOJ, and Barr was so skeptical of it that he had a US attorney look into it. That investigation apparently did not corroborate the allegations.
--The document appears to be sourced from some Putin aligned individuals in Ukraine
--The FBI was willing to let GOP and Democrat leaders come to the FBI offices and view/read the document.

In short, the FBI was unwilling to simply hand over a copy of an unverified document from a questionable source that was simply an allegation of wrongdoing by Biden to a group of individuals who have stated directly that they want to make it public and they do not care if it is true or not.

 

[FullMonte]

No Vivek, it's not 2 tiers of justice

It's 2 tiers of action because of two tiers of responses

DOJ: We think you have classified documents. Please give them back

BIDEN: Sorry about that, here you go, please look and see if you find any more

DOJ: Thank you
===============

Please...if you are going to run with this...at least tell the truth. That's not at all what happened in the Biden situation. Here is what actually happened:

BIDEN: Hey, we were moving some boxes, and we found a few classified documents. How do we bring them back to you?
DOJ: Bring them to this office. Can we come look at your home and other offices?
BIDEN: Sure, the key is under the mat, lock up when you leave ok?
DOJ: Can we talk to the people who were there when the documents were found?
BIDEN: Yeah, I've got their contact information here, they'll give you whatever you want.

Don't forget that the FBI/DOJ asked Trump to provide the names of the individuals who were involved in finding classified information so that they could be debriefed as part of a damage assessment. Trump refused to provide that information, so the FBI/DOJ got a subpoena to get those individuals' names, and even after getting the subpoena, Trump refused to provide the information.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Is that ALL you heard? Well here is some more you can hear about it.

--The document in question is potentially part of an ongoing investigation.
--The document in question could potentially identify a source of information or some type of method used to obtain that information.
--The document in question is simply a form that an FBI agent uses to document an interaction.
--The document apparently was provided by Rudy Giuliani to Bill Barr's DOJ, and Barr was so skeptical of it that he had a US attorney look into it. That investigation apparently did not corroborate the allegations.
--The document appears to be sourced from some Putin aligned individuals in Ukraine
--The FBI was willing to let GOP and Democrat leaders come to the FBI offices and view/read the document.

In short, the FBI was unwilling to simply hand over a copy of an unverified document from a questionable source that was simply an allegation of wrongdoing by Biden to a group of individuals who have stated directly that they want to make it public and they do not care if it is true or not.

I'm pretty certain there was a thread here discussing this very claim and the Dems took the FBI up on their offer to review those documents. The FBI even showed up to the hearing and the GOP wasn't interested in what they were presenting to them because it didn't fit their performative narrative which was designed to propagate more lies to their constituents.

 

[FullMonte]

I'm pretty certain there was a thread here discussing this very claim and the Dems took the FBI up on their offer to review those documents. The FBI even showed up to the hearing and the GOP wasn't interested in what they were presenting to them because it didn't fit their performative narrative which was designed to propagate more lies to their constituents.

I had heard about that, and that is so very important to that whole thing. The GOP members have actually read the document, they've seen it with their own eyes. But, they still want it as part of their "oversight." Why? You've seen the document, you know what it says. How does having a copy of it somehow help you with your oversight role? So, we go back to Grassley's statement that I keep bringing up...that they aren't interested in whether or not it's true, but they want to release it as soon as they get it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[brandon]

If found guilty I hope Trump receives the appropriate punishment.

The only correct response.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Something that I thought was very interesting that was discussed was asked about the counts compared to everything that was seized...

We only know about the 38 counts. There could've been an extreme amount of charges levied against Trump. However, how it was explained, the indictment it's only for charges that Smith was allowed to bring based on the classified documents. I can't remember who it was (maybe Andrew McCabe), but what was explained was that everything had to be presented to the intelligence community first, and things deemed too sensitive (active missions, etc.) could not be used in the indictment.

 

[Eeyore]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Warning: Language

Also: Funny and accurate

Spoiler to hide the language